SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

November 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where a lack of sophistication can come back to haunt you. This is not referring to a lack of sophistication of the parties. The parties, themselves, could be quite sophisticated. This is referring to a lack of sophistication with the construction contract forming the basis of the relationship. While parties don’t always want to buy into the contract drafting and negotiation process, it is oftentimes the first document reviewed. Because contract terms and conditions are important. They govern the relationship, the risk, scope, amount, and certain outcomes with disputes. However, a lack of sophistication can play out when that contract that should govern the relationship, the risk, the scope, the amount, and certain outcomes doesn’t actually do that, or if it does, it does it poorly. An example of how bad a dispute can play out when it comes to the lack of sophistication on the front end is Avant Design Group, Inc. v. Aquastar Holdings, LLC, 2022 WL 6852227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), where a cost-plus contract was treated as a lump sum contract. Here, an owner planned to perform an extensive interior build-out to a residential unit. The owner had an out-of-country architect; because the architect was not licensed in Florida, the owner hired a local architect/designer to oversee construction and obtain goods and services for the residential interior build-out. The contract was nothing but a proposal of items and costs. The proposal stated the owner “would pay the cost of goods and services of the vendors, plus pay a ‘20% Interior Design & Administrative Fee’” to the local designer. Avant Design Group, 2022 WL at *1. The proposal further stated, “This preliminary budget of the Client’s construction costs include [sic] anticipated costs for construction materials, labor and sales tax. Any other cost, including but not limited to freight, cartage, shipping, receiving, storage and delivery are not included in the preliminary budget and will be invoiced separately.” Id., n.2. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

September 25, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BIM models are mostly used by foremen on construction sites. But what if they could be made available for workers at the press of a button? This question was what the Finnish government-funded KIRA pilot project set out to answer. As a by-product, the project also produced augmented reality (AR) solutions for construction sites. The research project was called ”Digitalization of a construction project based on role and location information” (RoPa). It was conducted by construction company Fira and engineering consultancy Sweco. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

June 15, 2020 — David K. Taylor - Construction Executive
Many debate the pros, cons and claims of retainage—when one party to a construction contract withholds a percentage (typically 5%-10%) from an otherwise approved contractor pay application, and which typically is not paid until a project is substantially complete. If an owner withholds retainage from a prime contractor, typically the contractor will in turn withhold retainage from its subcontractors. While retainage has been part of the construction industry for decades, its concept, use (and abuse) have been under more discussion during the past 10 years. Based on heavy lobbying from primary subcontractor groups, state legislatures have passed laws to regulate retainage in commercial projects. Lenders have become more careful about loans and are frequently involved in retainage discussions. Bonded projects are subject to criticism when a surety does not step in and, like the mythical insurance company, write a check. Reprinted courtesy of David K. Taylor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at dtaylor@bradley.com

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

April 23, 2024 — Amanda C. Stefanatos - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Across the country, there is a split in authority as to whether an insurance company should be allowed to recoup defense costs where it is ultimately determined that the carrier has no duty to defend under the policy and the policy is silent as to such reimbursement. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest to enter the fray to address this very question, ruling in favor of policyholders in the recent case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company. Facts of the Case and Procedural History The Bodell case arose in response to a pair of certified questions from the US District Court for Hawaii to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case involved a group of primary and excess insurers that sold liability policies to Bodell Construction and sought reimbursement of defense costs that the insurers had paid to defend a construction defect claim against Bodell. In the Underlying Action, the District Court ultimately ruled that the claims against Bodell Construction were not covered under the policies. Because the claims were not covered, the insurers demanded reimbursement of the defense fees from Bodell . Having determined there was no Hawaii state law on this issue, and in light of conflicting decisions in the district courts, the US District Court for Hawaii requested guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda C. Stefanatos, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Stefanatos may be contacted at AStefanatos@sdvlaw.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

September 12, 2022 — Gregory S. Pennington - Traub Lieberman
In a case brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington won a motion for summary judgment in favor of their client, the owner of a residential property (“Property Owner”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Property Owner had retained a Construction Company (“Construction Company” or “Contractor”) to perform renovations to the residence, which included building a new staircase. The Plaintiff alleged that while walking down a set of temporary wooden steps on the property, the third step broke, which caused him to fall and resulted in the alleged injuries. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Property Owner and Construction Company for personal injuries as a result of the alleged fall. In the contract between the Property Owner and the Construction Company, it is stated that “[the Contractor] shall be solely responsible for all construction methods and materials and for coordinating all portions of the Work….The Contractor warrants to [the Property Owner] that all materials and equipment incorporated are new and that all work shall be of good quality and free of defects or faults.” The contract continues to state that the Construction Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner against all claims, which includes damages, losses, expenses, legal fees and other costs that might arise from the Construction Company’s performance of the work under the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com

---

$5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.



First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”



The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”



Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”



The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

November 27, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP has been recognized by Best Lawyers 2024 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:

• Metropolitan Tier 1
  • Orange County
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Employment Law – Management
    • Insurance Law
    • Labor Law – Management
    • Litigation – Labor & Employment
    • Litigation – Real Estate

• Metropolitan Tier 2
  • Las Vegas
    • Commercial Litigation

• Metropolitan Tier 3
  • Orange County
    • Litigation – Intellectual Property

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---